Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Police Told To Use Wikipedia When Preparing For Court

Posted by Soulskill on from the citation-needed dept.

Half-pint HAL tips news of UK prosecution lawyers who are instructing police to study information on Wikipedia when preparing to give expert testimony in court. "Mike Finn, a weaponry specialist and expert witness in more than 100 cases, told industry magazine Police Review: 'There was one case in a Midlands force where police officers asked me to write a report about a martial art weapon. The material they gave me had been printed out from Wikipedia. The officer in charge told me he was advised by the CPS to use the website to find out about the weapon and he was about to present it in court. I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up.' Mr. Finn, a former Metropolitan Police and City of London officer and Home Office adviser, added that he has heard of at least three other cases where officers from around the country have been advised by the CPS to look up evidence on Wikipedia."

7 of 180 comments (clear)

  1. They would be better off using snopes.com. by ProfanityHead · · Score: 5, Funny

    After all, snopes is always correct.

    1. Re:They would be better off using snopes.com. by Antidamage · · Score: 5, Funny

      The Wikipedia article on Snopes confirms its veracity. Unfortunately the Snopes article on Wikipedia does not reciprocate.

  2. Heh... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Funny

    I looked at the information and some of it had substance and some of it was completely made up

    Just like police testimony in general!

  3. All sources should be suspect by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When I read stories like this I imagine people going to sources other than Wikipedia (like, say, a textbook) and just doggedly believing everything they read. At least with Wikipedia (most) people have the sense to take everything they read with a grain of salt. Follow the citations people. Do your own research. If you're so easily convinced that something is "truth" then its not Wikipedia that's the problem.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:All sources should be suspect by themeparkphoto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Here's my Wikipedia story: Several years ago, while reading the entry for my Alma Mater, I decided to add my name to the list of notable alumni. (I'm not notable.) About a year later, when I decided to google my name and was shocked to see myself at my University's website on a page they had enumerating their famous alumni! That's right--my college did its research on Wikipedia. I decided to write my own wikipedia entry page--which stuck!--and among other references linked back to my University's page showing that I was a notable alumni. (I've written a number of books, so I was able to have a number of references that looked legit enough that my page wasn't deleted.) Last year, while reading the glossy brochure for my University, there was my name on a page that talked about all the 'famous' people that had graduated there. My little Wikipedia vandalism had come full circle and became the truth! I do not trust Wikipedia, and use this as an example to prove how bad an idea it is.

  4. Next week in court... by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Lawyer: "Mr. Finn, would you please tell us what you know about ninjas?"

    Mr. Finn: "Certainly. 1. Ninjas are mammals. 2. Ninjas fight ALL the time. 3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people."

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  5. Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Indepen by hamburgler007 · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902 Nuff said.